Sub menu

Wooohooo!!! Its Monday!

Hi Everyone! Wow, I’m so excited to be blogging here for two weeks that I barely know what to do with myself. For those who don’t know much about me, I’m one of the regular commentors around these parts. Although most of my bio is scattered in comments all over this blog, I’m not going to recap some of the more personal details here because my current job does not allow a person to blog under their real identity. Bummer I know. But since I love my job, I’ll stick to generalities. For example, I’m a white (ish), cis, het, monogamous, partnered, (mostly) TAB-NT woman.

I’m also a lawyer who does some pro bono domestic violence and children’s rights advocacy as well as general poverty law. I’ll probably talk about each of those a bit in the coming days and try to convince you to support some worthy causes.

More importantly, I’m interested in what you guys think because I think the commentariat is pretty damn wise. So I’m planning to ask some questions maybe even get a little meta on the topic of what social justice means. (Because me being meta would be SUCH a surprise.)

You may also know that I’m partnered with the amazing Mr. Kristen J. and we have an adorable dog we’ll call Chi. I might talk about interracial relationships/marriages or how ridiculous I think *all* relationship advice is. It depends on whether you all have an interest. I will definitely post pictures of my puppy and talk about how awesome she is because, yeah, I’m one of those people.

In fact, let’s start with a puppy picture…because who could flame this face?

Very interesting that you listed monogamous before partnered. I hope it isn’t just that you’re the first self-introducer whom I’ve noticed doing so.

Kristen J

August 15, 2011 at 12:53 pm

DouglasG:
Very interesting that you listed monogamous before partnered.I hope it isn’t just that you’re the first self-introducer whom I’ve noticed doing so.

Heh, yeah…I think non-monogamy gets invisibled particularly in partnered relationships, so I’ve added it to the list. Plus I kind of wish people would examine monogamy as default, because I don’t think its as common as social norms would have us believe.

Plus, Kristen J, I have a dog who would very much like to chase your dog’s butt as Chi chases the ball. (For serious. Casey doesn’t chase balls. She chases dogs who chase balls. But looks totally nonintimidating while doing it.)

DouglasG

August 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm

The point is certainly worth examining. I was slightly surprised that so many posters in the bisexuality thread seemed to half-assume that married = monogamous as a default or a matter of course, some to a greater degree than others.

I was struck by the order, that monogamous came before partnered, having had the impression (which could be wrong) that most people both monogamous and partnered listed partnered first. That would seem to exdpress a mindset that might express itself as, “I am partnered; we are monogamous.” Your saying basically, “I am monogamous and partnered,” just interested me, because I have stated it with that emphasis myself on occasion.

The point is certainly worth examining. I was slightly surprised that so many posters in the bisexuality thread seemed to half-assume that married = monogamous as a default or a matter of course, some to a greater degree than others.

I was struck by the order, that monogamous came before partnered, having had the impression (which could be wrong) that most people both monogamous and partnered listed partnered first. That would seem to exdpress a mindset that might express itself as, “I am partnered; we are monogamous.” Your saying basically, “I am monogamous and partnered,” just interested me, because I have stated it with that emphasis myself on occasion.

That’s interesting to me too. I think one of the reasons is for me its not “we” who are monogamous. “I” am monogamous. Although M is also a monogamous person, I would be (and have been) monogamous even in a relationship where my partner isn’t. I think its indicative of how fucked up and socially constructed our collective notion of monogamy is that we attach it to relationships rather than people. Its as if its the legal/social obligation keeps us from pursuing a relationship outside of marriage/partnership rather than our own desire.

Plus, Kristen J, I have a dog who would very much like to chase your dog’s butt as Chi chases the ball. (For serious. Casey doesn’t chase balls. She chases dogs who chase balls. But looks totally nonintimidating while doing it.)

Oh, Chi would LOVE that. In fact after spending 2 hours outside swimming and fetching she is currently sitting outside the lanai doors pleading with us to come back outside.

Kristen J: That’s interesting to me too.I think one of the reasons is for me its not “we” who are monogamous.“I” am monogamous.Although M is also a monogamous person, I would be (and have been) monogamous even in a relationship where my partner isn’t.I think its indicative of how fucked up and socially constructed our collective notion of monogamy is that we attach it to relationships rather than people.Its as if its the legal/social obligation keeps us from pursuing a relationship outside of marriage/partnership rather than our own desire.

This is interesting to me too. My partner and I are in a relationship we call “currently monogamous,” but neither of us considers ourselves truly monogamous people. That is, though neither of us is actively looking to enter into an additional romantic or sexual relationship right now, we do operate our relationship with each other on the assumption that this possibility remains on the table. So the specific actions in the relationship (i.e., I tell my NP I’m monogamous when she asks about safer sex) are monogamous right now, even if the people in it aren’t, necessarily.

Kristen J

August 16, 2011 at 9:43 am

Ah! So maybe we don’t scrap the idea of monogamy attached to relationships, but disentangle the concept of monogamous people from monogamous relationship. Excellent point!